Freewill Essay

Human factors are involved wildly in human behaviors and various social systems, including social laws and religion doctrines. Just like what I mentioned previously, scientists believe that the human life is pre-determined and human’s behavior is inevitable. They consider that if someone has all the information of one person, he or she may get to know how he or she is going to change in advance. But from the point of view throughout the history of human society people often turn to emphasize personal responsibility. Law and legal penalties for criminals act based entirely on the idea of individual “free will”. Most Jewish and Christian also believed that individuals should be responsible for the crime and suspects should be punished. We can imagine a psychology professor who believes determinism would say to a student: "You have to concentrate to your study, otherwise you will get nothing!" You can see the contradiction of human behaviors from this typical and ironic statement above, and notice that there exists a deviation between theoretical knowledge and actual human behaviors.

If we accept the determinist argument and assume human behavior as a consequence of external factors rather than of free choice, then we must realize that our explanation of human behavior leaves no room for morality. If people do not choose their actions, then they are not really responsible for them, and there is no need for praising or blaming them. If determinism were true, then there would be no basis for human effort, for why should a person make an effort if what he or she does doesn't make a difference? If what will be will be, then one has an excuse for doing nothing. Life would not be so meaningful for people on deterministic grounds. Human life, as we know it, would not make much sense without the concept of freedom. In our everyday lives, there are many times when we have to make decisions; what we

Is it true that if you do something outside your free will, you should be held responsible? To clarify, doing something outside your free will means doing something you could not have done otherwise. To answer the question, I believe that yes, you should be held responsible. Ted Sider claims that you should not be held responsible, and uses the following example to support his claim: Suppose that you are kidnapped and then forced to commit a series of murders by the hand of the kidnapper. Sider’s example clearly shows that you should not be responsible for actions committed that you could not of otherwise, but I can provide an example where you can.

Many Philosophers, such as Hoderich and John Calvin, believe that humans do not have free will to act in moral situations and that all moral actions have uncontrollable prior causes. Hard determinists, therefore, follow the belief that humans can not be morally blameworthy for their actions, evil or not, because their actions are predetermined. However, this is a ridiculous stance to take as humans are free to make moral choices, meaning they are entirely responsible for their evil actions.

“The idea of free is opposed by that of determinism which, in simplest form, holds that every event has a cause. Id determinism is correct, then nothing happen that is not caused to happen by some other event, condition, or set of events and/or conditions—and this includes every thought and feeling we have, every choice we make, and every action we take. The logic of this idea is, for many people, less of a problem than its moral and legal implications. Not only does free will become limited (if not eliminated) under determinism, so too does moral responsibility or culpability” (Ethics, Crime, and Criminal Justice). Casey Anthony was free found not guilty when in reality there are evidence that she killed her daughter, Caylee.

In “Human Freedom and the Self,” Roderick M. Chisholm takes the libertarian stance, arguing that freedom is incompatible with determinism, that determinism is in fact false, and that humans do posses the kind of freedom required for moral responsibility. Chisholm argues that a deterministic universe, where all events, including human actions, proceed from prior events without the possibility that they would proceed differently than they do prevent the possibility that humans are responsible for their actions. To validate his libertarian beliefs, Chisholm sets out to prove that humans are responsible for their actions and also the thoughts that lead to those actions. In order to answer this problem, Chisholm believes we must make some assumptions about the man who preforms the act.

2) In order to be truly morally responsible for one’s actions one would have to be causa sui, at least in certain crucial mental respects. 3)Therefore nothing can be truly morally responsible (Strawson). As stated by Strawson. “...it makes no difference whether determinism is true or false.

I want to argue that there is indeed free will. In order to defend the position that free will means that human beings can cause some of what they do on their own; in other words, what they do is not explainable solely by references to factors that have influenced them. My thesis then, is that human beings are able to cause their own actions and they are therefore responsible for what they do. In a basic sense we are all original actors capable of making moves in the world. We are initiators of our own behavior.

To establish determinism, we can admit by denoting that some events in our lives happen because of prior reasons without yet losing our sense of freedom. It is actually evident that the events and actions that an individual undertakes action have different effects upon him even though they may be past or present events. Though we might not be sure whether our past event result to our present status in life, it is pertinent to note that freedom in decision making is an open forum for each individual and impacts on later activities. We can admit that some events, for example, a next domino fall, are bound to happen because of a prior event. It is possible that if we have no power to act other than us, in fact, to act, then we have no free will. This argument for hard determinism is persuasive. It is certainly valid, and none of the premises appears to be clearly false. Although we have discovered a plausible argument in defense of hard determinism, most people find this argument to be impossible to accept. In our lives, we hold each other in account of our deeds that we had made wrong choices.

Do I have free will, or is every action I make predetermined? This question has concerned me for a long while. It has been the topic of many family dinner conversations, a topic of research, and a question in many prayers. I believe that this question concerns many people, since finding an answer has been the source of much literature, thinking, and religion. I have, after much thought, arrived at the conclusion of Soft Determinism - the Principle of Universal Causality, that for everything that exists or happens there is a cause, is true, but this principle is compatible with the Condition of Free Action. By Condition of Free Action I mean that a person is in control of his own actions (is the source of them) and

After researching classical and neoclassical theories, I find myself siding with the assumption of freewill associated with the classical theory. Although, the neoclassical theory concedes there are factors that can inhibit freewill, I believe people still have a choice, but simply choose what they believe is best for them at the time, giving little care for the consequences. Therefore, I believe people are completely responsible for there actions, even with potentially inhibiting factors. Just look at several of the recent premeditated mass murders being committed by individuals who were later determined to be insane; should they not be held accountable simply because some psychological exam has determined them to be mentally diminished?

I do believe that humans have free will to make their decisions. However, those decisions may be based on their personal environment, circumstances, unbringing and maybe even education. Each individual is responsible for

The determinists believe that people are molded by outside forces such as human nature, their environment, psychological forces, and social dynamics (Chaffee, 2013, p. 173). Human nature refers to the inborn nature that every person is genetically hardwired with. In other words we can’t have free choice because we cannot alter our fundamental character (Chaffee, 2013, p.173)

Another example of freewill is Macbeth arranging the death of Banquo and his sons. "I will give you a job whose execution will take your enemy off. Both of you know Banquo is your enemy? ...

Free will is the idea in which individuals can have the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate, and this idea of free will served as a prevalent theme in Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five. Vonnegut illustrates the absurdity of no free will in Pilgrim’s world through the book’s nonlinear structure and unorganized plot. The novel is constructed as a series of inconsistent flashbacks and future incidents through the eyes of the protagonist, Billy Pilgrim. Billy Pilgrim is able to time-travel to the past and future, but without any control over his peculiar ability. He can constantly travels through any moment in time without controlling it. Instead of free will existing, the notion of predestination and fate controlled